Civil Rights and Liberties REVIEW

AP Gov Seminar Unit 5

Civil Rights

guarantees of equal treatment, against discrimination by the government.

-disputes mainly revolve around 14th amendment and federal statutes like the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Due Process of Law

rooted in the 14th amendment —> no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law (including substantive due process)

• used to defend right to privacy, right to marry, and right to use contraception by the courts through substantive due process

Right to Privacy

the courts have determined that the constitution implies a right to privacy, through the use of:

• 1st amendment: freedom of speech, press, religion, petition, assembly, assocation

• 3rd amendment: protection against quartering of troops

• 4th amendment: protection against search without probable cause

• 5th amendment: protection against self-incrimination and double jeopardy

• 9th amendment: more rights exist than are explicitly stated in the bill of rights

• 14th amendment: applies rights to the states

heavily relying on substantive due process, it was first used in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) —> right to use contraceptives’

• Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) —> right to abortion (casey reframing the orignial decision in Roe)

• Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) —> overruled Roe and Casey, the constitution did not recognize a right to abortion

• Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) —> right to marry

Establishment Clause

1st amendment: the government may not establish a religion or improperly favor a religion

relevant cases:

• Engel v. Vitale (1962) —> states cannot compose or sponsor an official prayer in schools

• Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) —> produced the lemon test to determine whether government action violates the establishment clause.

• Kennedy v, Bremerton (2022) —> overturned the lemon test, only violation of the establishment clause is sponsorship and coercion, not all religious expression.

Free Exercise Clause

1st amendment: government may not prohibit the free exercise of religion, but it is not absolute and is up for the courts to decide, often focusing on if something is targeting a religion or is generally applicable to everyone regardless of religion.

relevant cases:

• Employment Division v. Smith (1990) —> neutral, generally applicable laws do not necessarily require religious expemtions.

• Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) —> high school violates Amish religion

Miranda Rights

established in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), requires warnings in custodial interrogation under the 5th amendment’s protections against self-incrimination. they include the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and anything that you say can and will be used against you.

Selective Incorporation

process used by the Supreme Court that applies rights in the bill of rights to the states on a case-by-case basis under the 14th amendment.

• first used in Gitlow v. New York (1925) —> 1st amendment freedom of speech

Double Jeopardy

5th amendment protection against repeated prosecution for the same offense after acquittal (and related protections).

Exclusionary Rule

evidence obtained during an illegal search cannot be used in court, under the 4th amendment’s protection against search without probable cause, designed as a remedy deter police misconduct.

related cases:

• Mapp v. Ohio (1961) —> applied the exclusionary rule to the states

• Terry v Ohio (1968) —> allowed limited stop-and-frisk when officers have reasonable suspicion.

  • exceptions include the good faith clause and evidence found that would have been discovered inevitably.

Prior Restraint

censorship before publication; forbidden under the 1st amendment’s freedom of press

• New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) —> created heavy presumption against prior restraint

Grassroots organizing

method of mobilizing individuals at a local level to influence change from the ground up. used by MLK Jr. for civil rightsl.

Strict Scrutiny

a standard of judicial review narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest, meaning it is tough on government and in favor of the individual. often involving cases about race classifications and burdens of fundamental rights).

Clear and Present Danger Test

established in Shenck v. United States (1919), you cannot cause panic for a false reason, an exception to the 1st amendment’s freedom of speech.

Symbolic Speech

symbolic speech is protected under the 1st amendment’s freedom of speech

relevant cases:

• Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) —> student speech and symbolic speech is protected unless it would cause a material and substantial disruption.

• Texas v. Johnson (1989) —> burning the flag as political protest is protected symbolic speech.

Self Incrimination

being compelled to testify against yourself, prohibited by the 1st amendment:

relevant cases:

• Miranda v. Arizona (1966) —> you must be told your rights in order to fulfil the protection against self-incrimination

Probable cause v. reasonable suspicision

probable cause —> likely committed a crime

reasonable suspicion —> may be armed or engaged in crime

• court cases revolve around searches under reasonable suspicion, and if the police were warranted in their search (mainly under Terry v. Ohio)

“Time, place, and manner” restricion

legal framework on how the government can impose restrictions on expressive activies and rights in the 1st amendment.

Defamation —> libel + slander

libel: written defamation

slander: spoken defamation

• for public officials, they must prove that publishers intended actual malice in defamation to win suits (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan)

Obscenity

content deemed as insensitive or indecent, often determined by “I know it when I see it”.

Americans with Disabilities Act (1990)

prohibits disability discriminatory and requires reasonable accomodations in many contexts, a massive win for civil rights.

Affirmative Action

seeks to extend opportunity for groups that have faced discrimination. critics argue these policies many penalize other groups as a form of reverse discrimination.

relevant cases:

• Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) —> rejected racial quotas but allowed race to be a consideration in the admissions process.

• Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/UNC (2023) —> greatly restricted the use of race in the admissions process.

De Facto Segregation

segregation resulting from socioeconomic patterns (e.x. segregated neighborhoods result in segregated schools, still a big issue).

De Jure Segregation

segregation by law. (effectively eliminated after Brown v. Board of Education).

Grandfather Clause

voting restriction that discriminated against African Americans (allowed poor/illiterate white people to bypass the literacy tests if their grandfather had voted).

Title IX (1972)

a major win for women’s rights, protects sex discrimination in federally funded education programs and is often discussed in the context of expanding opportunities for women’s athletics and education.

Civil Rights

protections from the government, including freedom of speech, protection against unreasonable searches, and the right to counsel.

Jim Crow Laws

southern segregationalist laws that were upheld in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) under the seperate but equal doctrine, but later overturned by Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

Equal Protection Clause

14th amendment clause that declares no state shall deny any person equal protection of the laws. relevant cases often include racial gerrymandering, civil rights, and affirmative action.

24th amendment

prohibits poll taxes, aiming to eliminate economic barriers that disproportionately affected low income and minority voters.

Letter from a Birmingham Jail

MLK’s letter dedicated to incite action for the civil rights movement through grassroots organizing and persistent pressure on local governments that would lead to neegotiations with better civil rights policies.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

1st amendment: establishment clause

holding —> Engel wins, states cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if they are voluntary and not tied to a particular religion.

reasoning —> breached the constitutional wall between church and state, the state is financing a religious exercise which violates the constitution.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

1st amendment: establishment clause

holding —> lemon wins, Pennsylvania and RI statutes are unconstitutional.

reasoning —> 3 pronged “lemon test”: statutes are only allowed if 1) they have a secular legislative purpose, 2) it’s primary effect does not promote or prohibit a religion, 3) it must not foster “excessive entanglement with religion”. In this case, the 3rd rule is broken.

impact —> lemon test used as a precedent in establishment clause cases for schools. overturned by Kennedy v. Bremerton (2022)

Kennedy v. Bremerton Schools (2022)

1st amendment: establishment clause & free exercise clause

holding —> Kennedy wins, the coach is able to engage in prayer with students after football games.

reasoning —> the school district tried to restrict his actions because of his religious character, violating the free exercise clause. Also, since the prayer offered after the games and not during his duties as coach, it cannot be considered a violation of the establishment clause. The new test is to determine the “historical practices and understandings” of certain situations. private religious expression at schools does not violate the establishment clause and is protected by the free speech clause.

impact —> replaces the Lemon test.

Sherbert v. Verner (1963)

1st amendment: free exercise clause, 14th amendment: due process clause

holding —> sherbert wins, prohibits the government from setting unemployment benefit eligibility requirements such that a person cannot observe key religious principles.

reasoning —> Shebert did not have free exercise of her religion on the day of Sabbath because she was fired and deemed ineligible for unemployment benefits after she had to miss work. Created the “sherbert test” which stated that a state must have compelling interest to justify a substantial burden of 1st amendment rights.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

1st amendment: free exercise clause

holding —> yoder wins, individual’s interest in the free exercise of Amish religion under the 1st amendment outweighed state interests.

reasoning —> states cannot force families to follow compulsory schooling past 8th grade if it substantially burdens religious practice without sufficient justification. (Amish religion in this case).

impact —> precedent for school’s prohibiting religious practice and forcing schooling.

Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (1990)

1st amendment: free exercise clause

holding —> employment division wins, states can deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes.

reasoning —> an individuals religious beliefs do not excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law. allowing smith to win would open constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations like military service, payment of taxes, and child-neglect laws.

Church of Lukumi Bablu Aye v. Hialeah (1993)

1st amendment: free exercise clause

holding —> church of lukumi wins, the city of Hialeah cannot pass ordinances that prohibiting the practices of the church.

reasoning —> under the strict scrutiny test, the ordinance was neither neutral nor generally applicable, and was specifically targeted at the church.

Shenck v. United States (1919)

1st amendment: freedom of speech

holding —> US wins, espionage act did not violate the 1st amendment’s freedom of speech

reasoning —> “clear and present danger test”/shouting fire danger, speech can be restricted in circumstances when it poses a clear and present danger, like Shenck’s anti-war leaflets.

Gitlow v. New York

1st amendment: freedom of speech, 14th amendment: due process clause

holding/reasoning → While NY wins, the due process clause does apply the bill of rights to the states in this case (gitlow still convicted under the NY anarchy law under “clear and present danger” test).

impact —> begins selective incorporation of the bill of rights on a case-by-case basis.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)

1st amendment: freedom of speech & freedom of press

holding —> NYT co wins, public officials must prove the publisher had “actual malice” to win a libel suit.

reasoning —> “actual malice” test to determine if the libel was intentional.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

1st amendment: freedom of speech, 14th amendment: due process clause

holding —> brandenburg wins, Ohio law violated Brandenburg’s right to free speech.

reasoning —> 2 pronged test: speech can be prohibited when 1) directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action, 2) likely to incite or produce such action. the KKK member’s actions were not deemed to incite violent action.

impact —> 2 pronged brandenburg test to be used in free speech cases.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

1st amendment: freedom of speech, symbolic speech at school

holding —> Tinker wins, peaceful protest of wearing black armbands could not be suppressed by the school.

reasoning —> in order to justify the suppression of speech, school’s must prove the conduct in question would substantially burden the school’s mission and operation. student’s free speech rights are not significantly diminished when they enter school.

impact —> foundation for student speech cases, “substantial burden” standard.

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

1st amendment: freedom of press, prior restraint

holding —> NYT co wins, the nixon administration did not have reason to prevent the release of the pentagon papers.

reasoning —> prior restraint is presumptively unconstitutional. the release of the publication from NYT co would not cause an inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces.

Hazelwood Schools v. Kuhleimer (1988)

1st amendment: freedom of speech in schools

holding —> Hazelwood schools wins, schools have the right to refuse to sponsor speech in certain circumstances.

reasoning —> educators can control the content of student speech so long as there is “legitimate pedagogical concerns”. The actions of the official met this test.

impacts —> limits the broad speech protected in schools in Tinker v. Des Moines.

Morse v. Frederick (2007)

1st amendment: freedom of speech

holding —> morse wins, the school has a right to censor speech that promotes illegal activities that interfere with the schools message.

reasoning —> since the school’s message was to not promote drug use, student’s freedom of speech did not apply when it came to promoting drug use. This was a specific exemption from the precedent set in Tinker v. Des Moines which set a high bar for restricting student speech.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

1st amendment: freedom of speech (symbolic speech)

holding —> burning of the flag was protected under the 1st amendment.

reasoning —> The fact that an audience takes offense of certain ideas or expression, that does not justify prohibitions on speech, which is the bedrock principle of the 1st amendment.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

1st amendment: freedom of speech (political speech)

holding —> citizens united wins, government can’t ban independent political expenditures by corporations/unions; spending is protected political speech.

reasoning —> Hillary: The Movie proves the electorate with information, and the government cannot censor political speech.

impact —> overturned McConnell v FEC, allows for super PACs and dark money.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

2nd amendment: right to bear arms, 14th amendment: privileges and immunities clause, due process clause

holding —> McDonald wins, individuals are allowed to own a handgun for self defense in the home.

reasoning —> following its ruling in Heller v DC, the 2nd amendment and the right to guns for self defense can be applied to the states. the right is deep-rooted in american tradition and fundamental to the nation’s liberty.

New York State Rifle Association v, Bruen (2022)

2nd amendment: right to bear arms, 14th amendment

holding —> NY State Rifle Association wins, people have the right to purchase a gun for self defense without reason.

reasoning —> New York’s proper clause violates the 14th amendment, no other constitutional right has a “special need” to exercise it. Gun rights are deeply rooted in American history. Gun restrictions are only constitutional only if there is a tradition of such regulation in American history.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

constitutional right to marital privacy (contraceptives)

holding —> griswold wins, a right to privacy can be inferred from many parts of the Bill of Rights

reasoning —> the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 9th, and 14th amendments create penumbras that establish a right to privacy, including use of contraceptives at home.

impact —> precedent for the right to privacy, used in decisions involving abortion, sodomy, and same-sex marriage.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

14th amendment: due process clause (right to privacy)
holding —> roe wins, abortion decisions are up to the women for the 1st trimester.

reasoning —> inherent in the due process clause of the 14th amendment is a fundamental right to privacy, which protects the right to abortion. state statutes preventing abortion are unconstitutional.

impact —> court enforcing a new policy on all the states, forcing them to do something. precedent for 50 years involving right to abortion.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

14th amendment: due process clause (right to privacy)

holding —> planned parethood wins, the pennsylvania statue that made women wait 24 hours for an abortion and a parent consent needed for minors is constitutional.

reasoning —> shifted the framwork from Roe slightly, abortion restrictions may not impose an “undue burden” on the woman. these regulations do not impose an undue burden in the way of receiving an abortion.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health (2022)

14th amendment: due process clause (right to privacy)

holding —> Dobbs wins, the constitution does not confer a right to abortion.

reasoning —> The right to abortion is not deeply rooted in history, Roe should be overturned because it "short circuited the democratic process” and lacked constitutional grounding.

impact —> overturned Roe v Wade.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

4th amendment: protection against unreasonable search

holding —> Mapp wins, obscene material found illegally can not be used against you in court.

reasoning —> establishes the “exclusionary rule” for seizures, where the courts determine if the evidence would have been found regardless of the illegal search, application of the 4th amendment.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

6th amendment: right to counsel in criminal cases, 14th amendment: due process clause

holding —> gideon wins, the right to counsel for felony defendants in state courts is applied under the 14th amendment.

reasoning —> selective incorporation, 6th amendment’s right to counsel is a fundamental right that applies to the states.

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

4th amendment: protection against unreasonable search

holding —> Ohio wins, the search was reasonable in this situation.

reasoning —> looking at the facts of the case, the police officer had more than a hunch to search Terry because he was acting suspicious. The searches were limited in scope and designed to protect the officer’s safety.

impact —> determining unreasonable search on a case-by-case basis.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

5th amendment: protection against self-incrimination

holding —> miranda wins, police must advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during custodial interrogations.

reasoning —> the 5th amendment provides protection from self-incrimination (including if the suspect didn’t know they had a right to remain silent). Thus, police must tell suspects of their rights during interrogation, which they can waive. Evidence obtained in interrogations where suspects were not told their rights is unconstitutional.

New Jersey v. T.L.O.

4th amendment: protection against unreasonable search, exclusionary rule

holding —> NY wins, the warrant to search TLO at school for marijuana was reasonable.

reasoning —> while the 4th amendment applies to public school officials, their exclusionary rules are more lenient and can do more warrantless searches than the police.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

14th amendment: equal protection clause

holding —> Ferguson wins, “separate but equal” doctrine did not violate the equal protection clause, upholding state-imposed racial segregation.

reasoning —> separate treatment did not imply inferiority of African Americans; segregation did not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination.

impact —> fueled the growth of Jim Crow laws in the south, overturned in Brown v Board of Education (1954)

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

14th amendment: equal protection clause

holding —> Brown wins, the “separate but equal” doctrine from Plessy v Ferguson was unconstitutional.

reasoning —> the doctrine was inherently unequal and violated the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. Segregation of public education, for example, instilled a sense of inferiority and harmed African American children.

impact —> big win for civil rights, overturning precedent.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)

Article 1: Commerce Clause

Holding —> US wins, anti-discrimination provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to hotels that host out-of-state travelers.

Reasoning —> Since the hotel was between two large highways and affected interstate commerce, Congress was justified in exercising the commerce clause for Title II of the Civil Rights Act, and the hotel could not discriminate against African Americans.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

14th amendment: equal protection clause

holding —> Loving wins, Virginia’s antimiscegentation law was unconstitutional.

reasoning —> Virginia did not have compelling state interest to warrant such a statute that prevented interracial marrage.

Regents of the University of.California v. Bakke (1978)

14th amendment: equal protection clause, Civil Rights Act of 1964

holding —> bakke wins

reasoning —> specific quotas involved with affirmative action treat people as members of groups instead of individuals, which violates the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. however, universities can still consider race as a factor, as long as it is done to create a diverse student body

impact —> 50 years of precedent, recently overturned.

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/UNC (2023)

14th amendment: equal protection clause, Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title VI

holding —> Students for Fair Admissions wins, the schools did not have a compelling interest to use race as a factor in admission.

reasoning —> the use of stereotyping by these colleges violated the Equal Protection Clause, following precendents in Bakke and Grutter.

impact —> put an end to affirmative action.

Obergefell v. Hodges

14th amendment: equal protection clause & due process clause

holding —> Obergefell wins, states must give a marriage license to same-sex couples, and recognize same-sex marriages in other states.

reasoning —> the due process clause guarauntees the right to marry as a fundamental liberty, because it is important to individual autonomy and expression. this is also backed by the equal protection clause.